(08-08-2011 10:03 AM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  

(08-08-2011 09:46 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(08-08-2011 09:44 AM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  

(08-08-2011 09:39 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  (the exception being Toledo and Miami who always go all in).

Holy crap Toledo plays Boise State, Ohio State, along with my Orange.

Yea I respect what the Rockets and RedHawks do year in and year out. I honestly don't remember the last time they played an FCS school.
Buffalo got away from it for a year or two but are right back to one game a year.

That is stupid for Toledo and Miami to schedule like that. It will hurt them when bowl selection time comes around and their 7-5 football team is passed over for a 9-3 Ohio.

Ohio has beaten Miami 5 straight seasons and effectively killed their bowl chances one year in the final game of the regular season. Miami won the division at 6-6 and went on to lose the MAC championship game and finish without a bowl at 6-7. Had Miami scheduled down more they would have been a bowl.

Maybe, maybe not. 8-win Temple from the MAC was not invited to a bowl game.

(08-08-2011 09:39 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Honestly if you banned FCS games a 9 game conference schedule would not be all that bad for the MAC. Yes they make a bit of money but usually MAC teams play at most one strong OOC team, two teams on par (CUSA/SunBelt/WAC) and one FCS team. (the exception being Toledo and Miami who always go all in).

But it's the FCS games that allow MAC teams to do 2-for-1s with big name opponents. You need a home game without a return game to balance out a 2 for 1, and FCS teams are the only ones willing to do that for less than a massive fee. Also, with a 9 game schedule that means half the time you get 5 road games and only 4 home games. How often do MAC teams play 2 out of 3 non-conference games at home without scheduling a FCS team?

In UMass's case, our agreement with the stadium doesn't even allow us to schedule that many games, so we'd have to move the extra MAC games somewhere else. It'd also be more expensive travel for us vs. scheduling regional non-conference opponents. Obviously the rest of the MAC has to do what's in its best interests, but a 9 game schedule would only be viewed negatively here.

This is identical to reading about WAC expansion. No reason for teams to leave the Sunbelt to play a schedule with increased travel costs to play a bunch of directional OH/MI teams, and the list of potential FCS schools is as at best uninspiring.

(08-08-2011 09:30 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(08-08-2011 04:53 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  I could see James Madison and Delaware making the jump. It looks to me like Stony Brook isn't ready, Charlotte and FIU are too far out of the conference footprint, and WKU is content in the Sun Belt.

It depends on the MAC standards.

Our contraqct with ESPN runs until 2015 (I think). It will be 2013 or 2014 before the MAC gets any of these teams as members. So they can, and should be careful.

1) I doubt you'll see any more FB only members. I don't think the presidents have too much of a stomach for it. UMass got in to even out the divisions (the 7-6 thing was manhandling our schedules).

2) The next additions, if any, to the MAC might be Basketball centered. There are quite a few on your list that would be fine additions but would they want to come all in?

-The MAC contract runs until the 2016-2017 season. I don't think the MAC would want to consider expanding until at least 2013. That would give an FCS upgrade like JMU two years to transition to full MAC play in 2015.

The MAC will have to meet an reassess the landscape every year as it evolves. If the MWC earns an AQ or Texas becomes independent how does that change the BCS's relationship toward the MAC. Would the BCS give the non-AQ and Indepenents 2 BCS slots instead of 1? There is a lot that could still happen here.

-I agree with your assessment that the MAC probably won't try to get anymore FB only members. The arrangement has been a big pain in the A for the MAC and only necessary because of the arrangement signed by the former commissioner of the MAC adding Temple for an unbalanced 13.

Despite what most believe, there is a solid chance that Temple and UMass could be convinced to join the MAC with two more solid eastern upgrades on board. Temple is only in the A10 because that is where UMass, Xavier and Dayton play. If the BE splits over TV negotiations, Xavier/Dayton could go into the basketball only conference. That effectively guts the A10, and then it may make sense for Temple/UMass to move over to the MAC all sports in advance of the next TV negotiations.

-I'm not sure that other than convincing Temple to join for basketball how the MAC is going to be able to pick up anyone that can improve its basketball among the ranks of the FCS and non-AQ football. WKU is not strong enough to make an impact for the MAC. The MAC is not going to add Butler (a former member) back as the league does not accept non-football members.

(08-08-2011 10:07 AM)Chappy Wrote:  

(08-08-2011 10:03 AM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  

(08-08-2011 09:46 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(08-08-2011 09:44 AM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  

(08-08-2011 09:39 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  (the exception being Toledo and Miami who always go all in).

Holy crap Toledo plays Boise State, Ohio State, along with my Orange.

Yea I respect what the Rockets and RedHawks do year in and year out. I honestly don't remember the last time they played an FCS school.
Buffalo got away from it for a year or two but are right back to one game a year.

That is stupid for Toledo and Miami to schedule like that. It will hurt them when bowl selection time comes around and their 7-5 football team is passed over for a 9-3 Ohio.

Ohio has beaten Miami 5 straight seasons and effectively killed their bowl chances one year in the final game of the regular season. Miami won the division at 6-6 and went on to lose the MAC championship game and finish without a bowl at 6-7. Had Miami scheduled down more they would have been a bowl.

Maybe, maybe not. 8-win Temple from the MAC was not invited to a bowl game.

Yes because Temple lost to Ohio and Ohio was given the bowl bid because of it. Both schools tied the season with 8 wins.

Had Ohio played Penn State instead of an FCS School and finished 7-5 they likely would have been shut out of a bowl even with the Temple victory. Thus my point of MAC schools scheduling down makes a whole lot of sense as difficult as what it is to get into a bowl these days now that 6-6 BCS schools can make it over an 8 win MAC team.

(08-08-2011 10:36 AM)LastMinuteman Wrote:  

(08-08-2011 09:39 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Honestly if you banned FCS games a 9 game conference schedule would not be all that bad for the MAC. Yes they make a bit of money but usually MAC teams play at most one strong OOC team, two teams on par (CUSA/SunBelt/WAC) and one FCS team. (the exception being Toledo and Miami who always go all in).

But it's the FCS games that allow MAC teams to do 2-for-1s with big name opponents. You need a home game without a return game to balance out a 2 for 1, and FCS teams are the only ones willing to do that for less than a massive fee. Also, with a 9 game schedule that means half the time you get 5 road games and only 4 home games. How often do MAC teams play 2 out of 3 non-conference games at home without scheduling a FCS team?

In UMass's case, our agreement with the stadium doesn't even allow us to schedule that many games, so we'd have to move the extra MAC games somewhere else. It'd also be more expensive travel for us vs. scheduling regional non-conference opponents. Obviously the rest of the MAC has to do what's in its best interests, but a 9 game schedule would only be viewed negatively here.

I agree the MAC needs to stick at 8 game schedule (balanced 4-4) and continue to play FCS to pad the win totals.

If the MAC expanded to 16 I would prefer to keep things at 8 games even in that case. Ohio would not be able to play the Michigan schools but that is perfectly fine. The Ohio administration has quite a lot of pull in the MAC as the founding member and the president is at the head of the MAC presidents council. Years ago he said that he wanted to look at UMass or Stony Brook as a 14th. He did get UMass into the MAC. Also Ohio coaches have been vocal about moving the conference East.

I can't see a move to 16 right away, but UMass in the MAC brings yet another vote in the East to go along with Temple, Buffalo, and Ohio. With this pull in mind we could be looking at 16 by the time the next TV contract rolls around in 2016.

Marshall and UCF were very happy to leave the MAC for C-USA.

(08-08-2011 10:47 AM)LSUtah Wrote:  This is identical to reading about WAC expansion. No reason for teams to leave the Sunbelt to play a schedule with increased travel costs to play a bunch of directional OH/MI teams, and the list of potential FCS schools is as at best uninspiring.

What you are missing here is the TV potential of the MAC.

1) The MAC owns the ESPN midweek football games until the contract runs from 2016-2017. They have effectively boxed the SBC/WAC out of that deal. Through this the MAC receives much better exposure than the SBC.

2) The MAC also has a deal with ESPN for regional telecasts in that market which could very well expand if the BE decides to leave ESPN. That regional network includes stations in Tampa/Orlando on Brighthouse. Adding JMU and FIU would bring the DC and Miami markets to that package aiding recruiting greatly.

If you are looking at TV packages among the non-AQ, the MWC/CUSA are roughly interchangable (MWC with more long term potential, IMO) then the MAC followed by SBC and new WAC. The MAC's goal is to get a TV package on the level of CUSA in money and may be able to do it with a couple of more members.

The SBC is a second tier non-AQ conference behind CUSA in its markets and at a greater disadvantage at the TV negotiating table, IMO.

(08-08-2011 11:05 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  Marshall and UCF were very happy to leave the MAC for C-USA.

This discussion is not about leaving the MAC for CUSA.

This is about leaving the CAA or SBC for the MAC. Quite honestly, most of the schools I have listed for MAC expansion will never receive an offer for CUSA.

(08-08-2011 04:53 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  I could see James Madison and Delaware making the jump. It looks to me like Stony Brook isn't ready, Charlotte and FIU are too far out of the conference footprint, and WKU is content in the Sun Belt.

-JMU with the expansion 25,000 is by far the most MAC ready of the eastern FCS schools. They also have their own recruiting backyard in VA/MD ensuring they would be a solid football team for the MAC. Delaware needs to make some stadium upgrades (they do have plans on the books) and I think their ability to succeed at the FBS level and their interest in moving up is questionable.

-I like Stony's potential at the MAC level but I agree they aren't ready yet. Maybe in 10 years after a move to the CAA, stadium expansion to 25k and some FCS playoff runs. They are where JMU was maybe 10-15 years ago.

-The MAC at one time was contemplating a mass raid of the Sun Belt with WKU, MTSU and even Troy considered. They decided to go the Temple route instead and WKU was voted down as the 14th football school. I think Western Kentucky is a good fit in the Belt and has better geography with MTSU nearby and A-State/UALR as what the closest MAC schools would be.

What I'm proposing then with JMU/FIU would be this:

I: FIU, James Madison, Temple, UMass, Buffalo, Ohio, Kent, Akron
II: Miami, Toledo, BG, CMU, WMU, EMU, Ball St, NIU

That would split the OH MAC schools down the middle of the state as Toledo, Miami, BG are in the West and Ohio, Kent, Akron in the East. Because of the geography, 16 may actually work better in the MAC with almost all the major rivalries protected.

JMU is obviously growing fast and on a collision course for FBS football. The MAC East would give them a Northeast based division to play in. FIU would have access to Northeast markets for student recruiting and it would help their baskeball program. Another thing with FIU, the MAC could start a bowl in Miami for them and let them play there every year, sort of like what the MWAC does for Hawaii.

The MAC is also at 16 schools going to be a much deeper and more challenging conference to win than the SBC for Florida International. The MAC isn't really much better top to bottom than the SBC but it is a lot bigger with better markets.

(08-08-2011 10:51 AM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  -I'm not sure that other than convincing Temple to join for basketball how the MAC is going to be able to pick up anyone that can improve its basketball among the ranks of the FCS and non-AQ football. WKU is not strong enough to make an impact for the MAC. The MAC is not going to add Butler (a former member) back as the league does not accept non-football members.

Old Dominion is the FCS team you're overlooking, but they'd have to be desperate for FBS to join the MAC for all-sports. They're not within bus range of anyone except Temple.

I don't think Temple can be convinced to join the MAC all-in, even if Xavier and others leave the A10. It's not just the basketball, it's the travel cost of the non-revenue sports. There are 9 A10 members within 400 miles of Temple, and the A10 members most likely to leave are the ones outside bus range. There is only 1 MAC member within 400 miles, and only just barely. If Temple gets a hankering for a long distance all-sports conference affiliation, they can just go to CUSA. It would take a very unlikely set of circumstances for the MAC to be the better choice both financially and competitively.

I do think the MAC should consider adding non-football members, like Butler if they could get them. It would take a perfect storm of circumstances for the MAC to attract a great basketball team that also has FBS football that wouldn't be put off by having to fly to 11 conference opponents all clumped together in a small area and wouldn't receive any better conference offers. I think the MAC would be better off running their football and basketball leagues as completely separate leagues with a significantly different roster of members if they want to get the most out of their opportunities. The Atlantic 10 has what relevance it has because the only members who give a crap about anything but basketball are UMass, Temple, Charlotte and Richmond.

Why aren't Temple and UMass trying to join C-USA for all sports. Much better football, more of a national reach, and the basketball is about equal to the Atlantic 10.

Everyone in CUSA is a flight for Temple, nevermind UMass. Though UMass might have cheaper travel than Temple in CUSA because we play fewer CUSA-sponsored sports than Temple. We could keep non-CUSA sports in local conferences.

Word through the grapevine is that there was at least a discussion between CUSA and Temple/UMass. I don't know if we had an offer, but I suspect Temple did, and they must have turned it down if they were willing to agree to a $2.5 million exit fee to continue with the MAC.

Thank you.

(08-08-2011 03:29 AM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  6) WKU would bring a presence for the MAC across the state of Kentucky and considerable tradition in men's basketball.

just for clarification, WKU does not have any pull in Kentucky outside of Bowling Green. however, if they MAC were to expand, they certainly would be better off by looking towards basketball schools. Why you may ask ?I don't see any teams they could get adding money to the TV contract. However, add teams likely to be second or third NCAA bids, and the conference makes real money.

(08-08-2011 12:15 PM)BigEastFan99 Wrote:  Why aren't Temple and UMass trying to join C-USA for all sports. Much better football, more of a national reach, and the basketball is about equal to the Atlantic 10.

Not even close. C-USA is a one team league (since realignment). The A-10 has as many as four teams in the tourney each year, and are located in areas where people pay much more attention to basketball, and where the teams have much more basketball tradition.

The fb-only additions makes perfect sense as the MAC has a bad tv footprint but wonderful travel footprint.

Divisional play where almost everyone is centered around ohio makes travel cheap. Adding every sport for temple & umass would probably cost both sides whatever incremental value their addition would generate. It makes the economics work well by the 12&14 setup they have.

(08-08-2011 12:14 PM)LastMinuteman Wrote:  

(08-08-2011 10:51 AM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  -I'm not sure that other than convincing Temple to join for basketball how the MAC is going to be able to pick up anyone that can improve its basketball among the ranks of the FCS and non-AQ football. WKU is not strong enough to make an impact for the MAC. The MAC is not going to add Butler (a former member) back as the league does not accept non-football members.

Old Dominion is the FCS team you're overlooking, but they'd have to be desperate for FBS to join the MAC for all-sports. They're not within bus range of anyone except Temple.

I don't think Temple can be convinced to join the MAC all-in, even if Xavier and others leave the A10. It's not just the basketball, it's the travel cost of the non-revenue sports. There are 9 A10 members within 400 miles of Temple, and the A10 members most likely to leave are the ones outside bus range. There is only 1 MAC member within 400 miles, and only just barely. If Temple gets a hankering for a long distance all-sports conference affiliation, they can just go to CUSA. It would take a very unlikely set of circumstances for the MAC to be the better choice both financially and competitively.

I do think the MAC should consider adding non-football members, like Butler if they could get them. It would take a perfect storm of circumstances for the MAC to attract a great basketball team that also has FBS football that wouldn't be put off by having to fly to 11 conference opponents all clumped together in a small area and wouldn't receive any better conference offers. I think the MAC would be better off running their football and basketball leagues as completely separate leagues with a significantly different roster of members if they want to get the most out of their opportunities. The Atlantic 10 has what relevance it has because the only members who give a crap about anything but basketball are UMass, Temple, Charlotte and Richmond.

Thank you for answering for me. Temple joining the MAC for all-sports would be the last option...They would probably going CAA in the rest of their sports before they went to the MAC(with fb staying in MAC)

I don't see FIU wanting to be a part of this. Being on an island at that level is not fun...especially at the level of the MAC. It's one thing to be like TCU or USF in the Big East...the Big East is a BCS AQ conference. It's worth the move and being alone in a BCS conference. I remember the 3 years UCF was in the MAC and there was zero in common with any of those teams and no rivalries established. Marshall was the closest to a rival we had...but mainly because they were the team to beat in the MAC, back then.

FIU would not benefit from the move, imo.

Where is the love for App State for the Mac? Hear me out here for a moment....I obviously don't think App State is ready for a C-USA type of jump but could certainly do well in the Mac or Sunbelt. If I were the Mac conference I would be looking at schools that have fans unlike a lot of MAC members. Your best and most realistic options to get to 16 are probably Delaware and App State. Just my opinion.

(08-08-2011 12:34 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Not even close. C-USA is a one team league (since realignment). The A-10 has as many as four teams in the tourney each year, and are located in areas where people pay much more attention to basketball, and where the teams have much more basketball tradition.

Not sure how factually accurate this comment is.

If you take Temple out of the A10 mix, as they would be one of the teams moving, how do the A10 and C-USA compare?
Tournament appearances they are probably about equal over the past 5 years. They each have one elite team, Xavier and Memphis. They each have random teams that come out to make the tournament, like a Richmond or a UAB.

The only reason A10 looks slightly better than C-USA is because of Temple. If Temple were in C-USA then they would look better than the A10. And with UMass also making the switch then C-USA looks even better as UMass is generally a top half A10 team.

I think the high end exposure of a Temple v. Memphis rivalry is at least as good, if not better than the Temple v. Xavier television draw. Temple would keep their rivalry with UMass. Temple could keep playing the Philly A10 schools anyway out of conference.

So really, Temple would be trading Xavier for Memphis, and then missing out on Dayton, St. Louis, Fordham, GW, Richmond, URI, St. Bonaventure, UNC Charlotte and Duquesne. (and yes, I had to look up the A10 in order to remember half of these teams)

It seems like C-USA has more upside than the MAC in football, and then Temple and UMass could form some hardwood rivalries that would be comparable to the A10 in basketball.

This is my opinion.